24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 562a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2407POLAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Complaint — Amendment — Medical provider is granted leave to amend complaint to correct misnomer in name of plaintiff where there is no doubt as to identity of intended plaintiff, and amendment is not attempt to substitute different party into litigation — Insurer is granted leave to amend answer to challenge provider’s standing on basis that name of plaintiff differs from name of entity in assignment
FLORIDA WELLNESS & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. HIALEAH, (a/a/o Ramon Polanco), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County. Case No. 12-2609 SP 24. September 2, 2016. Donald J. Cannava, Judge. Counsel: Ryan Peterson, The Patino Law Firm, Hialeah, for Plaintiff. Pablo Arrue, Jody Tuttle, and Elinis M. Sequeira, Conroy Simberg, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
In this matter, the Plaintiff listed on the complaint is “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. Hialeah”. The Plaintiff, a doctor’s office, filed a lawsuit for recovery of personal injury protection benefits from the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, for treating State Farm’s insured who was involved in an automobile accident. Attached to the Complaint is an assignment of benefits to a company called “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation of Hialeah.” The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue the lawsuit through the written assignment, but also through an equitable assignment. The complaint was filed on December 21, 2012. The Defendant answered on May 23, 2013, with the sole affirmative defense being that the Defendant paid an appropriate amount to the Plaintiff.
On August 1, 2016, after the statute of limitations had expired for most of the medical bills in the lawsuit, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend to challenge the standing of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment along with the Defendant’s motion for leave to amend which further explores this defense. Both motions claim that the Plaintiff is “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.,” which Defendant contends is a separate entity from “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah,” the entity to whom the assignment attached to the complaint was directed. The Court held a hearing on August 19, 2016 on the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend. The Plaintiff objected, suggesting that it would be prejudiced by the Defendant’s motion for leave to amend as it was filed after the statute of limitations for the bulk of the services at issue had expired, citing Ingersol v. Hoffman, 589 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 1991), as the Defendant could then argue that standing cannot be retroactively obtained for services past the statute of limitations.
In the alternative, Plaintiff argued it should be allowed to correct the misnomer in the Complaint, attributing the alleged defect to a scrivener’s error. The Plaintiff argues that the “Inc.” in the Plaintiff’s name in the complaint should be changed to an “of”, and that it is clear that the “Hialeah” entity meant to file the lawsuit originally. The Plaintiff pointed out at the hearing that the actual Plaintiff in the style of the case was “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. Hialeah” as opposed to “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.” The Defendant argued that the requested amendment is tantamount to a prohibited substitution of a new party in the lawsuit. Subsequent to the hearing, the Plaintiff filed an affidavit from its representative indicating that the Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah is the correct entity that previously intended to file the lawsuit. The Plaintiff also stipulated that it would not object to any previously filed proposals for settlement, motions for costs, or any motions for attorney fees on the grounds that the wrong party had been listed in those motions by the Defendant. The Court accepts this stipulation.FINDINGS
The caselaw is clear that “[a]ll doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendment. It is the public policy of this state to freely allow amendments to pleadings so that cases may be resolved upon their merits.” Bill Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Haymarket Co-op Bank, 592 So.2d 302, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363, (Fla. 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly S701c] (“Florida’s Constitution provides that the courts will be open and accessible to our citizens to address all legitimate grievances. Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const. Hence, a primary concern of the courts is to see that cases are resolved on their merits.”)
The Court finds that the Plaintiff request to amend its complaint is not a request to substitute a different party into this litigation but merely to correct a misnomer. See Arch Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP, 137 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D640a](“Although Arch Specialty inserted an incorrect plaintiff name in its original complaint, there is no doubt that the identity of the intended plaintiff was the insurance company which came out of pocket to pay the agreed settlement amount. Arch Specialty sought merely to correctly name it. Allowing the amendment would not prejudice Kubicki because the cause of action would still squarely center on the alleged malpractice associated with Kubicki’s representation of the accounting firm. . . . . .[T]he pleadings and the trial are intended to arrive at the truth, rather than to engage in a game in which the technique of the maneuver captures the prize. The general rule is: An amendment which merely corrects a misnomer might well relate back to the date the complaint was originally filed but this relation back rule is inapplicable where the effect is to bring new parties into the suit.”) (internal quotations omitted).
In a PIP context, the result in appellate courts has been similar. In Manuel Frade, M.D. P.A. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1061a (Fla. 11th Circ. Appellate, 2010), (“[T]he entry of the summary judgment in favor of the Insurer on the issue of standing, without affording Provider an opportunity to amend the complaint, effectively precluded Provider from a full civil proceeding on all issues to which it was entitled. The trial court incorrectly refused Provider the right to file its first amended complaint when it did not conclude Provider abused the amendment privilege or that an amendment would be futile. This constitutes an abuse of discretion, denying Provider the opportunity to show that it is entitled to a trial on the merits.”) See Mobile Diagnostic Centers, Inc. v. Geico Indemnity Company, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 797a (Fla. 18th Circ. Appellate, 2006), where a Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of “Mobile Diagnostic, Inc.”, which was a different corporation than the Plaintiff, “Mobile Diagnostic Centers, Inc.” The trial court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, and entered a final judgment for the Defendant, “holding that this would not merely correct a scrivener’s error, but would substitute parties and circumvent the pre-suit requirements of Florida Statute §627.736.” Id. That trial court was reversed, the appellate court holding that there was no real prejudice, and the Plaintiff should have been allowed leave to amend.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED to correct the misnomer. Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed amended to reflect the Plaintiff’s name as Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah. As such, the Clerk is directed to change the style of the case to “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah.” All pleadings shall list the Plaintiff as “Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah” henceforth.
The Defendant’s August 15, 2016 Motion for Leave to Amend is also GRANTED. The Defendant’s Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed with the Defendant’s above referenced motion, is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. The Plaintiff must reply no later than September 8, 2016.
